ERIC ED602858: Early Efficacy of Multitiered Dual Language Instruction: Promoting Preschoolers' Spanish and English Oral Language

2020·0.7 MB·English

by  ERIC

Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 1

Early Efficacy of Multitiered Dual Language Instruction:
Promoting Preschoolers’ Spanish and English Oral Language
Trina D. Spencer
University of South Florida
Meghan Moran
Northern Arizona University
Marilyn S. Thompson
Arizona State University
Douglas B. Petersen
Brigham Young University
M. Adelaida Restrepo
Arizona State University

AERA Open, January-March 2020, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1-16. DOI:10.117/2332858419897886

Author Note
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, through Grant R305A140093 for $1,481,960. The opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of
Education.
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 2

Abstract
The purpose of this cluster randomized group study was to investigate the effect of
multitiered, dual language instruction on children’s oral language skills, including vocabulary,
narrative retell, receptive and expressive language, and listening comprehension. Participants
were 3-5 year old children (n = 81) who were learning English and whose home language was
Spanish. Across the school year, classroom teachers in the treatment group delivered large group
lessons in English to the whole class twice per week. For a Tier 2 intervention, teachers delivered
small group lessons four days a week, alternating the language of intervention daily (Spanish,
then English). Group post-test differences were statistically significant with moderate to large
effect sizes favoring the treatment group on all English proximal measures and on three of the
four Spanish proximal measures. Treatment group advantages were observed on Spanish and
English norm-referenced standardized measures of language (except vocabulary), and a distal
measure of language comprehension.
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 3

Early Efficacy of Multitiered Dual Language Instruction: Promoting Preschoolers’ Spanish and
English Oral Language
Reading comprehension and academic achievement are dependent on oral language skills
(Catts, Fey, Tomblin, Zhang, 2002; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Griffin, Hemphill, Camp, & Wolf,
2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). While interventions to promote code-related skills have
proliferated, interventions to systematically teach oral language and its components such as
vocabulary, narratives, listening comprehension, and use of complex sentences (Cain & Oakhill,
2011; Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-Martin, & Taylor,
2005; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2008) remain largely unavailable to early childhood educators
(Zucker, Cabell, Justice, Pentimonti, & Kaderavek, 2013). Spanish-speaking children entering
English-only elementary schools are in particular need of effective interventions that are
strategically and intensely designed to prepare them for the academic language demands of
school (Castro, Páez, Dickinson, & Frede, 2011). The purpose of this study was to examine the
effect of an innovative instructional model designed specifically for young dual language
learners on children’s oral language skills, prepatory to their entrance into kindergarten.
The Oral Language and Literacy Connection
Oral language is a unique and meaningful indicator of academic success (Barton-Hulsey,
Sevcik, & Romski, 2017; Catts, Nielsen, Bridges, & Liu, 2016; Chaney, 1998; Clarke, Snowling,
Truelove, & Hulme, 2010; Larney, 2002). Specifically, vocabulary (Bleses, Makransky, Dale,
Højen, & Ari, 2016; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000),
narrative ability (Griffin, et al., 2004), listening comprehension (Catts, Adolf, & Weismer, 2006)
and the use of complex sentences (Craig, Connor, & Washington, 2003) are key contributors to
reading comprehension. Limited reading comprehension can be the direct result of limited
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 4

academic English oral language (Cain, Lemmon, & Oakhill, 2004; Catts et al., 2006; Dickinson,
McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2007).
Many young children with typical language learning ability may not produce or understand
language on par with academic expectations for a variety of reasons, including economic,
cultural, and linguistic diversity (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). The idea that children with language differences must wait until their language
difficulties evolve into reading difficulty and poor academic performance in order to receive
special, individualized help is problematic because with early identification and intervention,
their difficulties may be prevented (Catts, 1993; Catts et al., 2006).
With the adoption of higher language and reading standards across states, expectations of
what children are to understand and produce linguistically in school have likewise increased.
Young children who have typical language learning abilities, but who are far behind their peers
in English language development, for whatever reason, have few options. The outdated
dichotomous system of general and special education cannot fully meet the needs of children
with typically developing language who are learning English. More research is needed to
develop effective models of instruction that are strategically designed to facilitate and hasten the
acquisition of English (Vaughn et al., 2006).
Multitiered Systems of Support
One model that may have utility for promoting English language acquisition before
children experience academic failure, is multitiered system of supports (MTSS). The idea of
providing special services to children who are not performing as expected, irrespective of ability
status, is not new. In 2004, the reauthorized IDEA clearly outlines the concept of response to
intervention that has been shaped into the contemporary framework of MTSS. In general, MTSS
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 5

is a framework for identifying children with emerging difficulties so that timely differentiated
and preventative instruction can be dispensed according to individual children’s needs. As a
conceptual basis for early identification and prevention (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007), MTSS is a
paradigmatic model, not a formula, method, or procedure. Therefore, there are many effective
ways to actualize the chief MTSS attributes, which are: a) multiple tiers of instruction and
intervention, b) students who need more support transition to more intense arrangements of
intervention, c) interventions are intensified by adjusting the duration and frequency of
intervention, and the expertness of the interventionist, d) educators other than classroom teachers
assist in the delivery of targeted and intensive interventions, and e) tiered placement is
determined irrespective of special education classification (Marston, 2005).
MTSS has several advantages over the traditional general-special education dichotomy.
Perhaps the greatest is that rather then focusing on what caused the delays, MTSS delivers
supplemental intervention to all who need it, not just those with the appropriate diagnosis..
Despite the success of MTSS for early reading intervention, language has been neglected. If the
goal is to ensure all children receive what they need to succeed in school, then more systematic
language intervention should be considered for children with language differences. In the
traditional system, children who receive language supports experience no intermediate step such
as Tier 2 intervention. There is no strategy for eliminating environmental confounds to language
delays and no way to prevent language-related disabilities. Students go straight from classroom
instruction to special education, and that pathway is only available to students who have a
disability. Nonetheless, a multitiered approach for language, one that affords an intermediate,
preventative step, is possible, especially in early childhood (Carta & Young, 2019; Durán &
Wackerle-Hollman, 2019; Greenwood et al., 2013).
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 6

Dual Language Approach to Intervention
Recent recommendations for creating powerful interventions for Spanish-speaking
English learners include incorporating children’s first language to facilitate development of their
second language (L2; Baker, 2000; Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2007; Castro,
Garcia, & Markos, 2013; Collier & Thomas, 2017; Coltrane, 2003; MacSwan, & Rolstad, 2005;
Restrepo, Morgan, & Thompson, 2013). Those who receive sustained dual language instruction
tend to be two to three years ahead of those who receive English-only instruction in terms of
academic performance (Mahoney, MacSwan, & Thompson, 2005; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass,
2005). Collier and Thomas (2017) argued that the sustained L1 and L2 instruction engages
sociocultural, linguistic, cognitive, and academic processes that lead to high academic
achievement in children’s L2. Further, they posit that when schools provide strong dual language
programs, children from low SES backgrounds overcome the negative effects of poverty. Such
sentiments are echoed in the recent National Academy of Sciences (2017) report on promoting
educational success of children learning English, to include recommendations for incorporating
children’s L1 and involving families in the promotion and retention of their home language.
The possibility of skills learned in one language transferring with minimal direct teaching
to another language helps to explain the facilitative effects seen in dual language instruction
research (Méndez , Crais, Catro, & Kainz, 2015; Miller, Heilmann, Nockerts, Iglesias, Fabiano,
& Francis, 2006; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2006; Restrepo et al., 2013; Rolstad et al.,
2005). That is, when children receive strategic language instruction in L1, it is possible that
knowledge and skills transfer to L2, and in some cases vice versa (Marian & Kaushanskaya,
2007). It is theorized that cross-language interactions will occur across structures that have a
similar, underlying cognitive schema (MacWhinney 1999). Schemas are the mental organization
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 7

of prior experiences (Anderson & Pearson, 1984), and such schemas can be expressed through
narration (Stein & Glenn, 1979). Narrative organization is very similar across English and
Spanish, which implies that the narrative schemas for both language are similar. This underlying
similarity suggests that narrative structure will have linguistic reciprocity between L1 and L2
(and vice versa). For example, Petersen, Thompsen, Guiberson, and Spencer (2016) found that
the effects of an L2 intervention targeting narrative and linguistic structures transferred to
typically developing children’s L1. In vocabulary programs, transfer is evidenced by faster
acquisition of the concepts from L1 instruction to L2, than when they receive the instruction only
in the L2 (English in the case of the U.S.) (Perozzi, 1985; Perozzi & Chavez Sanchez, 1992).
Moreover, Miller et al. (2006) found that sentence complexity and story structure in school entry
in L1 predicted academic achievement in L2 in Spanish-English dual language learners. These
studies, correlational and causal, indicate that one language can facilitate the acquisition of a
second language and that the stronger the child’s L1, the greater the acquisition in their L2.
The Current Study
This study represents an early efficacy pilot study to determine the promise of a
multitiered dual language curriculum for a large-scale efficacy trial. As such, it was particularly
important to understand the extent to which measures of narrative, vocabulary, language
comprehension, and general language abilities could be impacted. Therefore, we addressed the
following research questions:
1. To what extent does multitiered dual language instruction enhance preschoolers’ oral
language skills when they are assessed using proximal narrative retell and targeted
vocabulary measures?
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 8

2. To what extent does multitiered dual language instruction enhance preschoolers’ oral
language skills when they are assessed using distal story comprehension and general
language measures?
Because the curriculum is new, the extent to which preschool teachers perceive it to be feasible
in their classrooms was unknown. Feasibility of an intervention can depend on how well teachers
like it, its contextual fit to the school system, how well teachers understand it and how to deliver
the lessons, and the extent to which teachers can make reasonable modifications. Therefore, we
also examined the curriculum’s feasibility in a secondary research question.
3. To what extent is the multitiered dual language instruction feasible?
Method
Setting and Participants
This study was conducted in Head Start preschool classrooms in a Southwest state.
During the spring prior to the commencement of the study, the first author gave a presentation
regarding the study to administrators of two Head Start grantees (one urban and one rural). Once
administrators volunteered for their centers to participate, the first and second authors visited
each center to speak directly with teachers about the study. Head Start teachers who were
interested in participating signed an informed consent form and completed a demographic
survey. When school started at the beginning of August the next year, the research team gathered
parental permission for children to participate. Using parent-completed forms at their sites,
teachers identified children from Spanish-speaking homes. All children for whom Spanish was
one of the languages spoken at home were invited to participate.
Teachers/Classrooms. In total, 25 classrooms were included in this study. Classrooms
were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups at the completion of the consenting and
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 9

screening process, resulting in 12 classrooms in the treatment group and 13 in the control group.
One lead teacher and one teaching assistant provided instruction to 18 to 20, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-
old children in each classroom. Although efforts were made to recruit classrooms that had at
least one teacher or teaching assistant who spoke Spanish fluently, given the available workforce
and frequent turnover, three of the treatment classrooms and five of the control classrooms were
without a Spanish speaking teacher or teaching assistant. Children in 18 (9 in treatment and 9 in
control) of the classrooms attended preschool Monday through Thursday. In the remaining seven
classrooms, children attended five days a week. All teachers reported using the Creative
Curriculum (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002) as their core curriculum which was
complemented by Teaching Strategies Gold (Heroman, Tabors, & Teaching Strategies, Inc,
2010). Head Start programs completed Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta,
La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) observations of all of their teachers during September or October of
the school year. These data are reported, along with additional information about the teachers
and classrooms, in Table 1.
Children. During the recruitment phase, the research team went to each center during
drop-off or pick-up times and met with all of the parents or guardians of the children.
Researchers explained the study to the parents in their preferred language (Spanish or English).
Consent was obtained from parents of 144 children ages 3-5 years old who were exposed to
Spanish at home. Once signed consent was obtained, the research team administered screening
measures to assess children’s language skills in English and Spanish. Screening involved the use
of the Expressive Vocabulary (EV) subtest of Clinical Evaluations Language Fundamentals-
Preschool (CELF-P; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2004; Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2009), a norm-
Running Head: MULTITIERED DUAL LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 10

referenced test of language, and the Narrative Language Measures (NLM) Listening retell
subtest of the CUBED (Petersen & Spencer, 2016).
The goal for participant recruitment was to identify Spanish-speaking children who did
not perform according to age expectations on English measures, indicating they may benefit
from a Tier 2 oral language intervention. To select participants, we conducted a multi-step
process. First, we examined children’s English NLM Listening retell scores, and any child who
earned a retell score of eight or higher in English was excluded. A retell score of eight
presupposes the use of key story grammar features, and places a preschool student above the 20
th
percentile based on normative data from 281 preschool students across the U.S (Petersen &
Spencer, 2016). Second, children who earned an English retell score of 0-7, but scored within the
normal range on the English EV subtest of the CELF-P, were also excluded. In other words,
scores within age expectations for English on either screening measure disqualified children
from being participants. Therefore, children who displayed low English skills and low, moderate,
or high Spanish language were included as participants. The screening process resulted in 43
children in 12 treatment classrooms and 40 children in 13 control classrooms. Shortly after
pretesting, two children from the control group moved away from the area, which resulted in 38
children in the control group.
In 5 of the 12 treatment classrooms, more than three children qualified to be research
participants (i.e., could potentially benefit from Tier 2 intervention). However, teachers were not
able to feasibly provide the Tier 2 intervention to more than one group every day. Therefore,
only three children in each class were able to receive the intended multitiered instruction and the
rest of the children (n=10) received only large group instruction in English. The teachers
determined which children would receive the small group instruction and the researchers did not